Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Highest level in almost the whole area for species and intact forests. KBAs no so clearly coincident. (It seems that some parts of the Amazon, particularly more remote areas, as some of them within the Brazilian State of Amazonas do not have much information.)
Evidence B:The area of operation of the proposal is of exceptional relevance, incorporating a large portion of the Juruá River basin, an important tributary of the Amazon River, recognized as a Ramsar site and still located in an important area of intact forest
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:the proposed area includes portions of flooded and upland forests, covering an estimated carbon stock gradient between more than 100 and more than 150 t/ha.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Maybe the strongest element of this area is the organisation of the local traditional communities, with strong relations to their local production and commercialisation, although yet spreading from the best organised ones to the less organised ones, including indigenous peoples.
Evidence B:the proposing institution has an important local leadership role in the proposed geography and actively participates in territorial management processes, including the management of protected areas
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: There is a tendency to consider more the indigenous peoples for unique cultural significance. I have not done so here.
Evidence B:the proposal presents in a clear and summarized way the historical process of local mobilization that involves the articulation between riverside and indigenous peoples, as well as the importance of this territory for these traditional populations
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: According to the Cumulative Development Pressures, there are some parts of the area with medium-high, high and even very high pressure levels, although others are medium-low. Several threats are presented in the proposal text.
Evidence B:I understand that there is a high threat to the local livelihoods due to the pressure for natural resources including mineral exploration increasing in the region. Much of the region is already protected, however they still demand strong actions to consolidate these protected areas.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: The legal and policy are strong in theory, but there is a lack of implementations from governmental side. Nevertheless, the communities self-organisation and the engagement with private sector have provided conditions to overcome the gaps.
Evidence B:The proposing organization has been the protagonist of several processes of strengthening local governance, from the creation of new protected areas to the implementation of projects aimed at generating income and social strengthening.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: The reality of the last decades, with stronger support, has changed in the current administration, but regulations are still in place.
Evidence B:I understand that there are several policies to which the initiative is aligned, and that are supported by government agencies in various levels (national, state and municipalities)
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: This is probably the strongest element of the proposal.
Evidence B:It is mentioned in the proposal and regionally recognized the strong history of the organization, as well as its positive integration and articulation with other social networks.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:there is a strong articulation of the proposing organization with other initiatives, as well as several projects that it leads or participates aimed at strengthening the conservation and management of natural resources in the proposed area
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:There is a strong alignment with the ICI objectives, with well-structured lines of action.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The language is somehow local (not the one clearly experienced in international proposals), but good enough.
Evidence B:coherent and well-structured objectives and activities
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: As in most good project strategies, a simple project will advance specific elements to compose with and contribute to the larger strategy. The writitng sometimes could lead ot over expectations, but the expected results and indicators are not.
Evidence B:I understand that the objectives and actions of the project are very well grounded and detailed enough to demonstrate a good ambition for relevant results
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Within larger strategy context.
Evidence B:I understand that the activities seem to be very measurable in terms of necessary investments, however I believe that with limited resources (not reaching the maximum value), there may be a need to adapt activities
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:the proposal has a strong co-financing basis, with resources already secured for the proposed period
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:the proposal has a high geographical coverage, including several protected areas and an extensive area of the Juruá River basin recognized in 2018 as Ramsar site
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: There is clear relation with the livelihoods, but yet important to consider the expansion of communities organisation support to the ones less organised and outside recognised traditional territories.
Evidence B:there is a strong alignment with the proposed indicators, which indicates a strong component of valorization of the traditional livelihoods, including fishing and extractive production
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: Based on the community organisation and production.
Evidence B:considering the long history of the organization and the good results of its initiatives, there is strong coherence of actions and strong local engagement with government institutions, NGOs and other social networks that must ensure good continuity with the proposed actions
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: They are strongly related, but could be better stated in the proposal.
Evidence B:I understand that as a result of the strong power of articulation of the proposing organization, there is a strong integration of the proposal with established national policies aimed at conservation and benefit sharing
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:the proposing organization already demonstrates leading actions aimed at strengthening the gender approach and there is a specific line of actions to further strengthen this approach
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: And the scaling up has been exercised through the years already.
Evidence B:there is a highly strong potential for scaling up, both because of the initiative’s direct actions in the proposed region, and in replicating the experience to other regions of the Amazon
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:I understand that the proposal is fully prepared and led by the proposing organization
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:the proposing organization has a long history of relevant and coordinated actions and I understand that the proposal is very well aligned with macro objectives established in the long term by the proposers.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:the proposing organization has a long history of partnerships and a strong range of partnerships, involving local, regional, national and international organizations
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:strong and full capacity, further strengthened by strategic partnerships
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: Good enough.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:I missed a better detail of the safeguards worked in the context of the proposing organization